Aleksandr J. Stoyanov v. Howard County, Maryland, et al.

In this pro se case Petitioner/Plaintiff Aleksandr Stoyanov received the 8/1/24 judgment of the 4thCircuit Court of Appeals with the right to file petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court or to file a petition for rehearing and/or petition for rehearing en banc within 14 calendar days after entry of judgment which was received on 8/5/24. Aleksandr Stoyanov had chosen to file a petition for rehearing en banc that was denied on 9/3/24. Accordingly, Petitioner has the right to file petition for writ of certiorari in the U. S. Supreme Court because:

1. a material factual and legal matter was overlooked or ignored by the 4th-Circuit Court of Appeals;

2. the opinion of the 4th-Circuit Court conflicts with the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court and the conflicts were not addressed, although, the Circuit Court panel Judges Niemeyer, Agee, and Heytens found that the Maryland U.S. District Court Judge Julie R. Rubin was wrong in her decision to dismiss Petitioner’s claims and the entire Complaint as the Circuit Court Judges specifically stated: "... we affirm the district court’s dismissal order, albeit on alternate grounds,” which are contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Thompson u. Clark. 596 U. S. 36, 39 (2022), and facts stated in the Petitioner’s Informal Brief, Complaint, Affidavit of Facts signed by Petitioner under oath, in addition to the undisputed evidence submitted by the Plaintiff to the U.S. District Court to support the Affidavit of Facts and the claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983 of malicious prosecution by the Maryland Howard County police and the Howard